Erie Warrior wrote: Stats are useful. But they've become a religion, and are touted to make definitive statements. To that, I object.

People touting them as religion and definitive aren't using them properly. Read any expert and they're all in the same tone, "due for a regression" not "will definitely regress". "Player A's BABIP of .400 should normalize to the traditional mean of around .300" not "this guy won't get a hit for a month".

peeker643 wrote:Ths is funny. I've been around this board for about five years even. This argument has woven it's way through threads consistently over that time and probably always will.

Yeah, this. It's why I haven't chimed in on this thread yet, despite a few opportunities to do so. People have their opinions, and I don't think this - or any other - thread is going to change them. But just a few small points.

One of the things that I think is important is that the issue of statistics has to do with scale. One play, one at bat, statistically irrelevant. But when you're trying to evaluate several hundred players across 2,000+ major league games per season, that's where stats start to show some meaning. Not to mention, stats might give you a notion that somebody you haven't heard of before is having a good season and is worth watching.

One other thing that is incorrect is this notion that stats = Moneyball = OBP = walks. I don't think that's the case, because it leads into argument by anecdocte, such as "An out would be better than a walk in situation X, therefore the stats are bunk." (I do note, however, that many of those situations have - as a prerequsite - someone already being on base by hit, walk, error, HBP, any way, any how). And anyway, stats themselves have different purposes. I don't think that RBI and wins are "meaningless," it's more that they are much more helpful in a narrative ("What happened?") sense than in a comparative ("Who's better?") or predictive ("What's likely to happen in the future?") sense. Those RBI happened, they meant that real runs were scored...but they don't necessarily tell you that a guy with 110 RBI is actually better than a guy with 85, because they depend on the strength of the team around him.

Finally, to make the point one more (but definitely not the last) time: Pitch F/X and similar technologies are warping this whole issue. Consider the following link: http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/24470/time-to-start-paying-attention-to-mike-trout and scroll down to the heat map(*) of Jesus Montero (bonus action photo of Asdrubal included in the link). The information is "statistical" in the sense that it is showing outcomes over numerous events and interprets it mathematically, but it also is trying to understand that information on a level that is usually the question that scouts and other visual evaluators are trying to make: Not just why did player X do what he did, but why did he do it?

(*) Full disclosure: A buddy of mine wrote the software that ESPN uses to generate these heat maps, so I am irrationally biased in their favor.

Jumbo wrote:One of the things that I think is important is that the issue of statistics has to do with scale. One play, one at bat, statistically irrelevant. But when you're trying to evaluate several hundred players across 2,000+ major league games per season, that's where stats start to show some meaning. Not to mention, stats might give you a notion that somebody you haven't heard of before is having a good season and is worth watching.

Hush you, Pros has used stats on the basketball board to prove that Tristan Thompson is Dennis Rodman and on this board to prove that Ubaldo fixed his delivery and Zach Whatshisface is a #3 starter.

Don't you dare try and convince him or the board that things like sample size are relevant.

peeker643 wrote:Ths is funny. I've been around this board for about five years even. This argument has woven it's way through threads consistently over that time and probably always will.

Yeah, this. It's why I haven't chimed in on this thread yet, despite a few opportunities to do so. People have their opinions, and I don't think this - or any other - thread is going to change them. But just a few small points.

True. We've been over it quite a bit. It is fun to talk about, though.Plus, I really like to bust Pup's balls.

The interesting thing to me is that, despite the use of some stats-based langauge ("analytics department," "run-expectancy tables") - most of what's in here seems fairly non-controversial to me. Basically: get your best hitters to bat as often as you can. Acta doesn't like bunting as a rule, but will bunt in a few key situations.

I don't buy the explanation given for having Damon hit lead off when he came in, but it's a nice try at trying to explain the nonsensical.

Brett Lawrie has already accumulated 3.5 Defensive WAR (2nd most is Brendan Ryan at a distant 2.5). With over half a season remaining its already the 51st best defensive season ever by that metric. To put it in perspective, ARod's best full season ever was 2.3, Beltre's was 3.1, Rolen's was 3.3, and Brooks Robinson only had 1 full season that was better. Disgusting.

CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! wrote:Brett Lawrie has already accumulated 3.5 Defensive WAR (2nd most is Brendan Ryan at a distant 2.5). With over half a season remaining its already the 51st best defensive season ever by that metric. To put it in perspective, ARod's best full season ever was 2.3, Beltre's was 3.1, Rolen's was 3.3, and Brooks Robinson only had 1 full season that was better. Disgusting.

To be fair, there's still big disparities in how WAR is calculated. Using baseballreference.com, Lawrie is the #1 player in the entire league with a total WAR of 4.7 (3.5 for defense, 1.2 for offense). Using fangraphs, his total WAR is only 2.7.

Just goes to show that, still, no one has any idea how to value defense.

Erie Warrior wrote: Stats are useful. But they've become a religion, and are touted to make definitive statements. To that, I object.

People touting them as religion and definitive aren't using them properly. Read any expert and they're all in the same tone, "due for a regression" not "will definitely regress". "Player A's BABIP of .400 should normalize to the traditional mean of around .300" not "this guy won't get a hit for a month".

And this is a revelation.... why?

And isn't basing a decision on objective data still a more sound practice than pulling a take out of you cornhole?

Or are you suggesting if you had 2 out in the 9th bases loaded down by 1 run you'd rather bat Cunnigham over Cabrerra becasue As-cab has better Sabrmetrics.

Really. What is the point here?

That's data based on LR isn't 100% iron clad lead pipe lock data (duh, that's why a mean is a mean) or that data based decision making is wrong.

CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! wrote:Brett Lawrie has already accumulated 3.5 Defensive WAR (2nd most is Brendan Ryan at a distant 2.5). With over half a season remaining its already the 51st best defensive season ever by that metric. To put it in perspective, ARod's best full season ever was 2.3, Beltre's was 3.1, Rolen's was 3.3, and Brooks Robinson only had 1 full season that was better. Disgusting.